>Actually they do. It's says 'the president SHALL appoint someone, and the senate SHALL consider the nomination'. Doesn't say they shall IF they feel like it.


Victor, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme Court."

The president nominates someone. If the Senate gives advice and consent, then Obama can appoint him.

But you won't find a single word in the Constitution that says the Senate is required to act on Obama's nomination.....not a single word stating that the Senate bore such an obligation to take an up-or-down vote.

Some history: U.S. Presidents have made 160 Supreme court nominations. The Senate confirmed 124 of them. Of the 36 that failed, 25 of them never even received an up-or-down vote. So the Senate has options to govern the advice-and-consent process (whether to filibuster, whether to take an up-or-down vote, etc.).

My personal opinion: the Senate should do "something". But let's be clear on what the Constitution says. It's the difference between good political science and dabbling.